Talk:Audio engineer

Use of Title "Engineer"

An Engineer is one who has a degree in engineering, and in my opinion, those licensed to practice engineering in the state or country in which they reside (in the United States, the Professional Engineer (P.E.) for instance or P.Eng in Canada). Audio "Engineers" of the type that operate the equipment required to mix and record sound on records, TV, radio, movies, etc. are not engineers. Audio technicians (what this article refers to as audio "engineering") operate the equipment and mix the sound. While that is definitely a skilled trade or craft, it is not engineering. Engineers DESIGN the equipment that is used in those fields. Designing the equipment from the transistor and discrete electronic component level requires knowledge and training far and above operating the finished product. There is a big difference. Engineers spend a minimum of four years studying hard sciences and the specific technical disciplines needed to design. You cannot compare an engineering curriculum to the schools teaching audio "engineering". Also keep in mind that in many locales (including every state in the USA and every province in Canada) it is illegal to hold oneself out as an "Engineer" unless a holder of a P.E. license (which again, in every state requires an undergraduate engineering degree from a school accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology). >

I'm assuming you have done absolutely no work in the music industry, correct? Look on every single CD, cassette, or LP that you have in your house, the people who recorded and mixed the album are credited as engineers. Everyone who works in this industry fully understands the difference between a creative audio engineer who has creative mix and recording input and a designer who is skilled in science. The title of mix, recording, or tracking engineer has been an industry standard for at least 60 years now. This article will remain "Audio Engineering" until the music industry has a massive adjustment to tradition and begins titling engineers as technicians, which usually refers to people who repair and maintain equipment in a studio or in a sound reinforcement situation. --PM - PhilyG ^talk 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I've never worked in the music industry. I work in the telecommunications industry. I understand they are credited as "Engineers" on record labels. I don't care that this may have been done by the recording and entertainment industries for 60 years, it is still a misapplication of the title to people not qualified as engineers. The audio "engineers" you describe are generally not scientifically trained. They are still technicians in the realm of engineering which again is a learned profession by means of a four-year degree from an (in the United States for instance) ABET-accredited engineering school. Another commenter here alluded to this below in his comment regarding links to the University of Florida (an ABET-accredited school). He correctly points out that engineering is a professional title conferred by means of the degree, and that engineers have extensive preparation in mathematics, physics, and other basic sciences in addition to the coursework specific to engineering such as circuit design, circuit analysis, fluid mechanics, strength of materials, machine design, and many others. Operating the sound equipment and maintaining it are both technical and skilled trades but they are not engineering. Try printing business cards with your name and the word "Engineer" on them, and circulate them in the United States without being a licensed P.E. for example and you will find that you are breaking the law. Record companies can call their employees anything they want (unfortunately) but engineer is something that one becomes by virtue of engineering school and licensure regardless of what an industry may call it. —Preceding [[User:|User:]] ^{[[User talk:|talk]]} 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)unsigned

Well you let me know when you find an audio engineer who has been arrested for having that title listed on his business card, as most engineers are freelance and not employed by a record label. I hate to fight about things but I must know what the purpose of starting this thread is. Do you wish for this article to be taken down or are you just disgruntled that we are titled "engineers" when we aren't officially credited engineers? --PM - PhilyG ^talk 05:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If all you are doing is simply selling services to record companies privately (not holding out to the public in that you publically advertise yourself as an "Engineer", presumably without a Professional Engineer license - again, I assume the United States here, other countries may have similar or other requirements, Canada for example has been particularly proactive in legally prosecuting people who falsely advertise as Engineers, such as Microsoft Certified "Systems Engineers' for instance) then you are probably OK. What an industry does internally is up to them, however, if you were to distribute your cards in public you are technically violating the state's engineering registration laws. Public practice of engineering is restricted in every state of the US to degreed and licensed professionals - just as are medicine, law, architecture, and many others. Of course I disdain the use of the professional title by unqualified people - I have three degrees in engineering and have designed radio equipment at the component level - if you don't have an engineering degree and licensure, you are not an engineer, period. As I said before, your job function is different from that of an engineer. Engineering specifically means design of equipment, facilities, methods, processes, etc. - you don't do that I am certain. You operate equipment that is the result of engineers but don't design it. I don't wish this article to be taken down, however, for the general public reading this I would like to try to educate them what the true function of engineering is, of which there is much public misconception. —Preceding unsigned

I wonder what forum will allow you to complete your mission of educating the public. Precious few of the public will be reading this article... I would bet it's mostly industry insiders and hopefuls. What you need to do is attack the problem at the source. One of the sources is with record company recording session crediting practice. Recording session credits always say "engineer", not "technician". Getting all the labels to change their ways won't be easy. Good luck on that.

You have stated your purpose and it's a fine challenge. On the other hand, what this article should be is a reflection of the world at present, not a hazy image of possible futures. Let's set aside the frustration at the trivialization of the term "engineer" and instead report about how the term is used now in the music industry, how it got to be used that way, and define the difference between current music industry practice and usage in other fields. Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I'm totally okay with making a note that Audio Engineers are not certified PE's, but I would hate to say that we are really "technicians" who have been mistakenly labeled by the music industry for years. We engineer the music that comes out of the speakers just as you engineer the electricity that flows through devices. We are not simple operators of the equipment, it is a creative field. That is all that I feel should be kept straight. --PM - PhilyG ^talk 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You do not design anything. You are not creating new equipment and technologies. Yes you do a creative job, but it is still not engineering. The music industry has frivoulously and mistakenly labeled those functions as engineering for a long time. By the way, in the last movie I saw the sound technicians, recordists, camera operators, sound mixers, gaffers (electricians), etc. were credited with those titles. There were a few credits to engineers, but those were people who designed equipment used to create the special effects. Walt Disney and Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) for example have staffs of degreed engineers doing this type of work. By the way, in the main body of this article, there is an item on "Lexical Use", it notes that in Germany for example, the people who do your job on records are noted as "Sound Technicians". Sound (or Audio) Engineers there are people who have been through engineering school designing equipment and facilities. Apparently, Germany respects and codifies the difference between technical and engineering work.—Preceding unsigned

<--You'd be surprised at the amount of ingenuity and creativity required to make supposedly well-designed gear work appropriately in the concert touring environment. I've seen quite audible evidence of mistakes made by so-called design engineers and I've had to adjust other parts of the system to work around such weaknesses and faults in electronic gear. The live and studio sound folks deserve some credit for making the hodge-podge into a system. Technically, it's the creative application of studio electronics and acoustics combined with a knowledge of music that gives a greater-than-technician status to recording engineers. It's working at the intersection of room acoustics, loudspeaker characteristics, microphone behavior, music production, data processing and electronic signal flow that gives the live audio engineer a greater-than-technician status. I have no problem with our observing that the word 'engineer' is common usage in such cases. I do have a problem with any attempt to excise the word 'engineer' from this article. I expect this article to accurately represent current usage. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

<--I don't doubt that ingenuity and creativity is required. I never disputed that. One of the prerequisites for engineering is use of quantitative science (mathematics, physics, chemistry, economics, etc.) as they apply to engineering design. I don't think that sound crafting (perhaps that is a good term to use) involves much if any quantitative analysis so by definition it is not engineering. Designing the acoustics of a concert hall for example would, and that would be beyond your scope for instance. Designing loudspeakers and microphones of any reasonable performance involves advanced mathematics and physics. The conversion of electrical signals to mechanical signals (sound) or vice-versa is an extremely complex process that can be modeled only with differential equations. Practically all of the renowned high fidelity speakers for example such as the Bose 901 (Dr. Amar G. Bose), original Acoustic Research (acoustic suspension invented by Edgar Villchur), were designed by engineers applying quantitative electrical and acoustic engineering methods to their design. Had they been designed by people with no formal engineering training undoubtedly they would have performed poorly and not been commercial and critical successes. The current usage, or misusage of the term engineer in connection with audio production is simply wrong, regardless of whatever historical or de facto usage one industry may have used.

Also consider this - if one can do audio "engineering" work without a degree, some sort of independent test of one's qualifications to do the work (such as in engineering a PE license for example), professional experience, etc. - or as the article points out, with no training whatsoever (autodidactic), why should the public at large respect this type of work as significant at all? Don't get me wrong, I love music and respect the creative effort required to produce a pleasing sound on a recording. I suppose within the narrow context of the recording industry, only to people working in that industry, you may consider yourselves "engineers" but let me assure you in the realm of real engineers (at least the four-year ABET-accredited degree and preferably graduate study and licensure) you are not.

The usage of the term comes from the early days of recording technology, when most recording engineers actually did possess an engineering degree, wore white coats over a nice suit to work every day, etc. This lasted up until some time in the 60's. It's not entirely accurate, as the modern audio engineer's qualifications in nearly all cases will not match up to those of a "real" engineer, but that's what they're called. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but you can't very well go about changing people's job titles just because you feel like it. Thee darcy (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. I just want to point out, in the article on engineers, it explains that "the term 'engineer' is also often used to describe a technician or a person that mends and operates machinery or engines. In that use, it usually does not refer to a person with an academic engineering degree or an engineering license." Audio engineers certainly fall under this category. I think the usage is entirely appropriate. Thee darcy (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. That usage is just plain wrong. If an Engineer is not one with an engineering degree and a professional engineering license (or its equivalent) than what is an engineer? That's like saying a medical doctor or attorney isn't one with a medical or law degree, and a license to practice, respectively. The second part of the statement is correct, in that use (which is not proper use of the term), those folks are technicians, which "mend" or operate machinery. Engineers design the machinery, technicians mend and operate. That difference is night and day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.92.214 (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm an recording engineer with engineering degree in acoustics and audio technology so by your logic I can call myself an sound engineer, right? There are sound engineers out there who know far more about the technical side of all the gear than me but don't have an engineering degree. As sound engineers we use our technical knowledge of acoustics, electronics and psychoacoustics to engineer the sound and i think that's where the confusion is because you are used to engineers engineering physical things like machinery and electronics where as we engineer something a lot less tangible. (i also have a degree in mechanical engineering but that's kinda irrelevant here) - Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.192.142 (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this may vary somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but around here (Quebec) "Sound engineers" have the educational equivalent of an engineering technology. "Sound engineers" (as well as technologists) are NOT members of the professional body that regulates engineers (OIQ in Quebec), and by law, the only persons allowed to sign their name with P. Eng ("ing.") or stamp documents are registered members of the OIQ. Even a graduate with a B.Eng. is not a registered engineer, and there is a certain stigma about anyone calling themselves an engineer unless they are registered with the OIQ. The reason being that the engineering professional body is in place to protect the public. It's this social responsibility that legally distinguishes Engineers from technologists. Since, "sound engineers" operate in the entertainment industry, there is no reason for them to be registered in order to protect the public. The term "sound engineer" is still tolerated (if that makes them feel more important), as long as the legal distinction and responsibility is implied and understood. --DMZ (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the gist of the argument is "tradition" instead of updating the name, or correcting the mistakes of the past, we in the US would rather stay conservative and wait until we are the only country left with the "tradition". It should be stated that "engineer" is a misnomer. ~bcoste1 on 2014 Oct 03 Fri 19:00 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcoste1 (talk • contribs)

Engineer definition: a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or public works. An audio engineer: produces a recording or a live performance, balancing and adjusting sound sources using equalization, dynamics processing and audio effects, mixing, reproduction, and reinforcement of sound. In a nutshell, they design and build a sound(song) from the ground up, while maintaining the equipment used to create/design the music. Only difference is its required to have schooling to hold the title of PE license etc. Yet there's a lot of audio engineers that have degrees in a field that's related to the music industry, but it's not required to have one.

Audio engineers design music, recording engineer, mixing engineer, mastering engineer. They create and design a song from scratch. They're still engineers just in a different field of work. They also design acoustic rooms for sound recording, or live recording room studios, etc... etc... There's alot about the music industry that you have zero knowledge of. Educated Marine OIF OEF (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I strongly desagree to this opinion.

1-Diploma is made by a Man and those holding those diplomas are not the best. 2-Holding a Diploma in a musical field does not mean and it never meant doing a good job. 3-Most sound Engineers are people who are Scientists, physicians, chemists, biologists, computer scientists, Musicologists etc. So they don't need a super school or Science again to afford this task of processing sounds as Engineers. 4-An audio and a sound are nearly the same thing but here the author even misuses the two terms and inverses them. So it's really the Man who processes sounds in the Studio that is the sound Engineer. Whether he is from a school or not, if he produces the result needed and has the full compréhensive background of the profession, so he is the sound Engineer. 5-Working in a musical Studio on producing music is with no discussion a sound Engineering since you cannot have such a skill in one year and it's not a fact of Diploma to be there. So people liking Diploma will excuse us. They have Diplomas in some fields of Sciences but making a good Music as a Technician who masters all in that field is an Engineering.

An Engineer is one who has a degree in engineering, and in my opinion, those licensed to practice engineering. 6-If they didn't know or they have not yet integrated it in their lives and institutions, to build music for a Recording Studio is a very complex job that requires years of trainings and experiences. a-You must know about music far well (Musical genres and the Science of Music somehow - Musicology). b-You have to learn how to hook (to cable) those appliances. c-You have to learn the Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)and master at least 70% of those plugins. This doesn't take one year, you can ask to real sound Engineers who did it and how many years they passed to be good at producing good Music.

IN CONCLUSION, What we have to know by now is that, someone who work in a Recording Studio as the main Technician to produce good Music with everything else that goes with, is a sound Engineer for these simple reasons: 1-He designs the skeleton of the Music he produces. 2-He can prepare the Music for the commercial sake. 3-He manages everything in the Studio that is a professional industry and sometimes with other personnels for the company to work well. 4-He is the main Technician and knows how everything works and this is what we require to Engineers. An Engineer is a designer and a Technician just what a musical producer in the Studio does. STOP THINKING THAT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO IS NOT TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO DIPLOMA, IT'S NOT EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS DIPLOMA TO PRODUCE A GOOD RESULT. AND SPECIALLY IN THE MUSIC PRODUCTION UNIVERSE, IT'S NOT THE DIPLOMA THAT WILL MAKE SOMEONE GOOD ENGINEER, IT'S A NATURAL SKILL WITH THE ACADEMIC SCIENCE THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THOUGHT IN SCHOOL. MUSIC PRODUCER IN THE RECORDING COMPANIES ARE SUPER ENGINEERS.

Iya Ephrem Paulin -Musicologist, -Sound Engineer (Self Enterprise) -Expert in Guitar and Inventor of the Guitar Perfect Tuning Eph-Set-GBEbGBEb. -Degree in Animal Biology. -Artist Musician. -Language teacher English-French (1DTW-1JDM - YouTube) Iya Ephrem Paulin (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Tags tags tags

Seriously, let's resolve some issues in the next week or so to get all the tags off this page. It look so parochial right now. I'll be around, the neutrality should be an easy place to start. --drmartini 22:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

*I apologize in advance for the 'randomness' of what follows. I'm just not currently in a state to do it the 'right way', and I think for all purposes related to this article, this will suffice*

Not sure why the title of this discussion page includes: "We don't have an article called "Audio engineering"" Guess that's wikipedia's friendly error message when no discussion topics yet exist. Anyway..........

Please stop moving your current/favorite school to the top of the list. I made it alphabetical, and I think it looks good. If you think I am somehow favoring one place over another, find another system of organization (e.g. alphabetical by state; by year founded; etc.), but don't just continue to move one particular school to the top of the list. Also, please try to post a direct link to the homepage of the PROGRAM, not just the school (e.g. www.ais.edu).

One last thought, at this point, with places like "Full Sail" and other giant campuses just for this area of training, shouldn't there be a seperate article soley for either audio engineering/production OR 'media' production (Full Sail being an exmaple I can think of; I've seen where the video students film a performance by the music theory/performance students, and the lighting tech's do their thing, and the live sound guys run the FOH stuff, with other groups recording audio to tape or running in-ear monitors...that kind of thing) schools? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.114.145.238 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is Columbia College in Chicago not on the list of schools? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.29.94.189 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 6 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Is the statement about the uselessness of many degrees appropriate? Stizz 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Stizz

Yes, that is absolutely necessary for such an article. 4.january 2007-Anonymus.

"It's worth noting that a formal engineering degree is usually worth nothing if it's not accredited by a national or international accreditation organization, such as EurIng, NORDING"

I am sorry, but in 25 years as a professional audio engineer, I have never met anyone with one of these accredited degrees. As a matter of fact, many of the most successful recording and mixing engineers have no degree whatsoever! Stizz 17:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not an engineer without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree from a school accredited by an engineering accreditation board recognized by the education department or government of the nation or state you are in. Mixing records, stage shows, movies, etc. is not engineering. The people who design the equipment (for the equipment manufacturers) are the engineers, not those who merely operate it. Please see my comment above under Use of Titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to ask why a site such as this http://www.audioracle.com/Articles/Schools/AudioSchools.php

Is listed as it is not an authoratative resources for this subject at all, and excludes many schools and options for audio engineering learning, not least the distance learning solution of http://www.audiocourses.com for one and there are many many more!

Well, regardless of how you feel, advertising audiocourses.com is not allowed. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No I dont want to advertise, I in fact think it is a very suitable link for the area, being a verified audio engineering qualification with staff as members of the Audio Engineering Society. And even if it the resource was not entered, I still feel the resource for that audio schools site is limited and frankly very under-represented and does not indicate exactly what is our there for apsiring students.

It seems to me that advertising http://www.audioracle.com/Articles/Schools/AudioSchools.php should not be allowed here, as it only lists 5 schools that have paid to be listed there. The Mix directory has well over 100 programs listed, and should be sufficient for American students.Stizz 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am working on "audio engineers" as in the "scientists and experimenters involved in the history and current development of electromechanical loudspeakers." To that end, I feel some sort of delineation between the two is in order so that in the future the categories and lists are topic specific. Ancjr 09:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this article has a somewhat narrow definition of what an audio engineer actually is. Audio engineer is a very broad term, and the article seems to indicate that a recording engineer and a sound engineer are the same thing. Well, I tend to disagree. I actually am an audio engineer, but I am not a recording engineer. I design and plan large-scale, permanent audio installations in places like concert halls, convention centers, hotels, churches, etc. While I am fully capable of operating a mixing board or any other piece of audio gear, I do not get paid to mix audio. I'm sure that people like sound effects designers or foley artists would consider themselves audio engineers too, but not recording engineers. I think that a clear distinction should be made; and more research should be done before writing such a matter-of-fact article. Snottywong 00:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Snotty, I think sound engineer is descriptive of a person that manipulates, records, and otherwise works with sound. I think your profession would better be described as a audio room designer, or an acoustical engineer, or something of the like.Therminator 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why someone removed someone's edit adding SAE institute, and my edit adding recordingjunkie.com. But signing in and having proper discussion should be done. Especially when leaving other links that are similar such as NORDING, or the sound and lighting link that is less relevant to audio engineering than recordingjunkie which is audio engineering specific. If content and quality are an issue, neither NORDING nor the uk sound and lighting links should remain. Better resources, such as pro-soundweb.com or gearslutz.com would be higher quality communities. Please sign in before deleting and at least discuss why or why not things should or should not be included. Thank you. Therminator 03:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is correct to not list links to schools, because it quickly gets out of hand as has been seen here. As regards "Communities", I am not familar with the other sites listed and discussed, but I am adding gearslutz, as I find that to be a highly useful and reputable site with a very active community of audio engineers.Stizz 15:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why then delete those other audio sites, while keeping NORDING and EURLNG which noone seems to know who they are. I feel that your removing the other schools and other sites, but selectively leaving others that noone is familiar with is biasing this entry. If those are to remain off then we should remove all sites until they are discussed. From past discussion it seems that other schools were listed in the past, in a non-biased alphabetical order. Aside from that, Gearslutz is a good one to remain I agree, but UK sound and lighting is not. I also think NORDING should be removed since it doesnt seem they are english speaking for the most part, this is the ENGLISH version of the wikipedia, nording might be more at home on the Nederlans version? S! Therminator 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The main problem here is the title. The article seems to refer only to recording engineers, who, as mentioned, tend to be high-school dropouts, musicians, technicians, or anything but graduate engineers. What do we call the guy who designed the microphone or the ADC? --Ampwright 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nording

From the nording.org website: "Nording is a collaboration between 11 engineering societies in the Nordic countries. Nording represents 390.000 engineers and scientific professionals in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The main objective for Nording is to work for increased welfare and sustainable growth based on technology and science." I do not see how this organization is significant in any way to an article about Audio Engineering. I move to delete this link, and I will, unless there is a reasonable substantiated objection. Stizz 20:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Stizz, not to mention the fact that this is the English WIKI and few native english speakers will find a nordic site useful. It is better at home on a different language WIKI. I have removed Nording and the comment that an engineering degree is useless without accreditation by nording. I also removed a link to a smaller engineering forum, that is currently too small to be considered of equal footing as gearslutz or a similar board.Therminator 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not what the article said. NORDING is the accreditation board for Scandinavia; f.ex inside Norway, the accreditation board is called NITO. In the EU in general the board is called EURING. I don't know what the US and such has, but the issue is that a bachelor and masters in engineering requires an accreditation board if you're going to "brag" about it. An accreditation board has thousands of engineers behind it to back your academic engineering degree. If there is no accreditation behind it, you might have gotten a diploma by mail. It is important to mention the role of accreditation in the academic field of engineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.220.64 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable engineers; redlinks

(am moving this discussion here from indivual talk page as it may interest others)

I would suggest deleting the redlinked ones, or creating articles, as if they do not have Wiki articles they are not of note.--Epeefleche 09:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks are just Wiki articles that haven't yet been written.  ;^)-- Binksternet — Preceding undated comment added 06:31, 24 August 2007‎

Often because the person is not notable. If a non-notable article is written, it is speedily deleted, resulting in a red link as well. Unless someone plans to write articles that pass the speedy delete test in the near future, I would delete the red links as lacking indicia of notability.--Epeefleche 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that if the notability of the redlinks is not reflected within a month, that they be deleted. They can always be put back when their notability is reflected by an article being created. I'm concerned that non-notables have been added to this list. Another possiblity is to limit the list by another objective criteria, for example making it limted to notables who have won Grammys.--Epeefleche 08:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree quite strongly and I've reverted the redlinks. I have no problem with red links; they indicate a potential page. Not notable? Not hardly. For instance, Neil Dorfsman engineered Brothers In Arms so well the album won a Grammy for Best Engineered, Non-Classical. To me, that's notable. Binksternet 06:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Leon's delete. If notable, write bios, and put them back in. If they survive the speedy delete process, they will stay. We have a speedy delete process to make sure that non-notables do not clutter up Wiki. It should not be subverted by creating reds. They have been red for over 2 weeks now.--Epeefleche 12:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the field of Audio Engineering is a very small and unnoticed one by the general public. The fact that an engineer doesn't have a Wikipedia article does not at all mean that they are not a notable or excellent engineer. I agree that a page should be created but they should not just be blindly deleted because they have been "redlinked" for a certain number of weeks. One good way to check their experience, which is one of the best ways to determine the skill of the engineer (they wouldn't get work if they really sucked), by looking them up on All Music or something of similar function. --PM - PhilyG ^talk 02:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I did some searching on the redlinked names, and deleted the ones I could find nothing on. I realize these people might still be legit sound engineers, but as I understand it the Wikipedia way of looking at this is not wheter the info is true, but if it's true and verifiable. I think it's much less harmfull to not include some notable editors, than to allow redlinks noone can verify. Otherwise this could turn into a sneaky way for some engineers to create false creditability for themselves (I found this page while looking at the new user contributions list, when someone who just registered added themselves to the list). --Twinzor (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?

The main article is tagged with a neutrality dispute and I see no discussions related to general neutrality on this talk page; there are only disputes of a few individual items. Let's either have one or remove the tag. Scott Johnson 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Better yet, edit the article yourself with the improvements in place. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted. Done!Jjdon (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Mechanical-Electrical and Digital-Analog oppositions

An audio engineer is someone with experience and training in the production and manipulation of sound through mechanical (analog) or digital means.

I think this is misleading in that audio can be transmitted via physical(or mechanical, depending on how one uses the term) or electrical media, and it can be in analog or digital format.

A better definition may be:

An audio engineer is someone with experience and training in the production, manipulation and transmission of sound through physical (analog) or electrical (analog or digital) means.

(I think its pretty safe to disregard the hypothetical transmission of a digital signal via a physical medium). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.14.188 (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Formal and Accredited Engineering Education

I was editing this page and inserted a comment about formal engineering and accreditation and I listed a school of engineering, such as the University of Miami, but it was removed. Can anyone explain why?. There is listed on this page, an organization called AES and a school called SAE, which deals with professional audio engineers and different education, but they lack formal engineering accreditation from an engineering accreditation board, and such education includes extensive mathematics and physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B0ef (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 November 2007

It was probably removed because it looks suspiciously like a commercial link, as the edit summary states. _TheIslander 20:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Commercial link?; the University of Miami?. Since when did we stop linking to a university?. Besides, the link there to the SAE school is also commercial. What gives?. This is an article about audio engineering and we can't link to an audio engineering university?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B0ef (talk • contribs) 20:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The user who removed my comment also removed the link to SAE now, but the issue still remains. Are we not allowed to link to a university?. The link I want there is a link to the university of Miami, where a bachelor or masters of engineering in the field of audio is aquired. The term engineer is a professional title, but few in the audio engineering world really has such a degree. I think it's important to link to this site because it explains in detail what a formal and accredited engineering degree is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.220.64 (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sam Ginsberg: notable or not?

User:Twinzor and I have been reverting the addition of Sam Ginsberg to the "Studio engineers of note" section. User:Ibusis1 has been adding him back, and replied in this way to my request to cease reverting:

User:Ibusis1:

• Google,The Bop sessions-Featuring Dizzy Gilespy,Sonny Stitt-Sam Ginsberg-Engineer
• Garland Jeffreys-American Girl and Boy -Engineer-
• Roy Buchanan-My babe-Engineer-
• Machine-There But for the Grace of God Go I-Engineer
• Frankie Miller-Double Trouble-Engineer
• Disco Not Disco-Engineer-
• Virus-Tierra del Fuego-Engineer
• Hellcats-Engineer/Producer
• Caifanes-El Diablito-Engineer/Mixing
• Valeria Lynch-Engineer
• Orleans-Forever-Engineer
• Dl Byron-This day and Age-Engineer-
• Valeria Lynch-Energia-Engineer
• Private Eye-Engineer
• John Lennon/YokoOno"Walking On Thin Ice"Recording/Mixing

Partial Discography-CREDITS ON GOOGLE-Sam Ginsberg/Engineer/Mixing Engineer

Last Recording Engineer to record and work with John Lennon the Night he was killed.Recording his last work,which was Guitar and Keyboards overdubs played on Yoko's single "Walking on thin Ice" @ The Record Plant,NYC.

This roll call of artists makes me think Sam Ginsberg is a fine and upstanding engineer from the working ranks, not a notable character who has achieved higher-than-normal status from an outstanding mix or an award-winning album. Ginsberg's biggest claim to fame appears to be that he laid tracks on tape for John Lennon on his last day alive. To my way of thinking, that's not good enough to qualify here. Did those tracks take Ginsberg to award-winning notice? Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We are new to wikipedia .but we added a name on the "Noted Audio Engineers" Page to see it deleted two ,posssible 3 times.

The irony is it was deleted by a novice in the industry of Recording!The name submited is an Engineer that many on the list are "Peers" and was sponsored by Phil Ramone to be a voting memeber of NARAS,over 20 years ago and still is a voting memeber of NARAS.

This persons' credentials are indeed outstanding and his partial discography spans over 25 years.Sam Ginsberg working with John Lennon was one of many remarkable recording sessions.Obviously to have been hired by the Lennons to record and mix Yoko's single speaks volumes. We believe it should stay,but will respect the 3 times rule ,and would appeal to a more worthy Peer structure in the Recording Bussiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibusis1 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to have a lot of knowledge about Sam Ginsberg, why don't you write an article about him on Wikipedia? A well written and sourced article would make it much easier to evaluate his notability. --Twinzor (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, write an article on Sam Ginsberg. If it survives deletion, it would suffice for his credibility here on this page. Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Studio engineers of note

Seeing that the list of notable studio engineers has once again been filled with redlink, I'm thinking of trimming down the whole list to 5-10 entries. I think it would be much better to include just a few highly notable engineers, than to have a huge list of which half (well not half but almost :P ) cannot be verified. I'm open to suggestions on who should be included in the new list. If there's no objections in a couple of days, I'll go ahead and trim it. --Twinzor (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks

I've performed another cull of the redlinks in the "* of note" sections. I'm no expert in the field, so some of the ones I've removed could truly be notable. However, if that's the case, please either create the respective article, or add with a reference that proves notability. Otherwise, it's just an arbitrary list of names. Thanks, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 10:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Change Page Title

Hey so I think the title of Audio Engineer should be changed to Sound Engineer. It is more accepted now to use the term Sound rather than Audio. If you even google Sound Engineer you will have those job titles come up. I think it should be corrected to be more recent. Thank you! --Dswiggy (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You might want to set up a stronger argument than "I think", pointing to the books that are written about the subjec, and basing your argument on what has been published. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Audio engineer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604013140/http://acosoc.org/TechComm/SCTC/ to http://acosoc.org/TechComm/SCTC/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Audio editing software which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Role of Women section

I was a bit confused by the presence of this section. This article is supposed to be about audio engineering and there is a large section about the lack of women in audio engineering field, which seems like a topic better discussed in an article about gender discrepancies within professional fields. After looking at the history, I noticed that this section was originally lifted from the Women_in_music article. This seems like a much more appropriate area for this topic. I tried deleting the section with an explanation in the summary that it was not relevant to an article about audio engineers, but it was reverted. I'd like to hear some feedback from other users. The heading "Role of women" as well as the content does not seem to fit the WP:NPOV rule.

• That section title is not a violation of NPOV--I don't know why it should be. And apparently there is a huge gender discrepancy in the profession--why wouldn't that be worth noting here? Drmies (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Because of all the reasons I stated above. I get the feeling you didn't read what I wrote. You were the user that reverted my changes so it seems that you have an interest in this topic staying here. There are gender discrepancies as well as ethnic/racial discrepancies in many fields, engineering is just one of them. In fields like healthcare, social services, humanities, life sciences, and education, women dominate men. Do all demographic discrepancies need to be discussed within every Wiki article? Should we talk about the percentage of engineers that are homosexual, black, latino, asian disabled, etc? I think not. I don't see how this section is applicable to Audio Engineers or Audio Engineering. It should be put back in its original location which was in the Women_in_music article. Burtre26 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • By the same token I could say "you have an interest in this topic NOT staying here". Yes there are discrepancies in many fields. I don't know if they need to be addressed for every profession, and it doesn't matter--what matter is whether reliable secondary sources indicate that it's important here. Actually, I think that the section can do with a small bit of pruning (and producer vs. engineer needs to be worked out), but this is one of the sources--so Sound on Sound thinks it's important. And that opinion piece is from 2013--I wouldn't be surprised if many more sources could be added. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Alright then: "Why Aren’t There More Women Working in Audio?", "The Problem With Women Working In Audio", "'If You Want To Be Somewhere, You've Got To Occupy It': How Women Are Changing The Face Of Engineering And Producing" (and there's SoundGirls, founded by Karrie Keyes). Rosiestep, do you have a subsection for audio engineering? Drmies (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
      • You just linked an opinion piece. Yes, its from a reliable source but it doesn't provide an impartial tone for the article and does not improve understanding of the topic at hand: audio engineers. Verifiability does not include inclusion as stated here Burtre26 (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
        • I think you are confusing the issue here. I am not denying that men make up the majority of audio engineers. What I am saying is that it does not improve the article having this here. It needs to be in a more appropriate section like Women_in_music. Burtre26 (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Well, if you admit that there is a great gender disparity, yet state that a section on women in the industry is not appropriate here, then I feel pretty comfortable with my position. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• And seriously, Burtre26, you need to slow down. This edit summary, "This quote does not improve upon the article and is unnecessary", is a bunch of crap. Yes it improves upon the article, and it illustrates nicely how at least one woman perceived what the industry was like. You may know some things about audio, but I know a few things about Wikipedia, and I strongly suggest you drop this warrior attitude. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There is already an article called Women_in_music that covers this issue in thorough detail. You say "I admit...". I never said that there wasn't a gender discrepancy. My issue has been from the start that this is not the appropriate place to be displaying demographic disparities in a given professional field. I guess I'll just have to repeat myself over and over again until my concerns get addressed directly. The title of this article is "Audio Engineer". When people search for this article, they want information on just that. We don't need 4 paragraphs full of quotes from women in the field who feel they have been mistreated. That is just not applicable to the topic at hand. I fell I'm in a losing battle here because I don't have the time or energy to maintain this discussion with you for as long as it will take for me to get my point across. The politicization of these articles is really disturbing to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burtre26 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Please, mansplain some more about "women in the field who feel they have been mistreated". Or mansplain to me what Wikipedia readers want to see. You're in a losing battle because you are wrong. Gender discrepancy in audio engineering should be handled in this article; there is no good reason to do that in "Women in music". Might as well do it in "Women in jobs". Or "Women". Or nowhere at all. This isn't politicization, Burtre. It's good editing. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Um, excuse me, did you just assume my gender?? The fact that you just used the term mansplain proves my point that this is politicization. Mansplain is a made up word created by people to discredit anything a man says by calling it mansplaining. Let me guess, you're a feminist, right? Well, Wikipedia is not the place to be pushing your agenda. What about impartial tone do you not understand? Every article does not need some side note on the historical mistreatment of a given social group. You're politicizing a topic that does not need to be politicized. This article is about audio engineers, people that record music. I am one of those people. So I have some concern about how that field is represented on Wikipedia. And having an entire section dedicated to the plight of one gender in a given field, clearly for political reasons, bothers me. If you are representative of the average Wiki editor then I have a feeling this format is doomed. Burtre26 (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
        • You know women are people too, right. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'll repeat the same idea I said in the "Record Producer" discussion: Being objective here (like if we were having a respectful discussion about an article for deletion)... This discussion is specific to record producers/audio engineers, not to other fields of engineering or the music field in general. In the specific discussion to women in audio engineering positions (or the lack of), there are well-documented articles by reputable news sources and statistics/research to support it. There is a specific initiative taken on by the Recording Academy this year (which should be in this article if it is not). So, this isn't a matter of one opinion against another or a crusade or anything like that... if you look at the facts (and the rules of notability with Wikipedia), there are grounds for this subtopic to be included. Actaudio (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It is also well-documented that women are in the minority in engineering fields in general, so you are wrong, it is not an anomaly specific to audio engineering or recording producing but rather all fields engineering-related. Does this fact make it more relevant to the article? I don't think so. Verifiability does not mean inclusion in a given article if it is not appropriate for a given article. Burtre26 (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Actaudio didn't say it's an anomaly, or that it's specific to audio engineering. Please try to read more carefully. They said it is well documented that women are underrepresented in audio engineering. And thus it is appropriate for this article. This is not a difficult thing to grasp. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, sorry for the delay in responding; getting ready for flight tomorrow morning to Berlin for WM Summit. Yes, Women in Red has this, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Sound. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm glad that Rosiestep agrees with me that this should be a topic discussed in a different article. It appears that the discussion is still ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burtre26 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• After reading the back-and-forth between Drmies and Burtre26, I think it's best to use the great wealth of guidelines Wikipedia itself provides for these kinds of situations. From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. . ." (Emphasis added) This is not to question the section's validity; I do not think the truth of the section is being disputed, just whether or not it belongs where it currently is. However, I do not think it would be best to remove the entire section, instead the section could be "pruned" and integrated into the rest of the article. From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an encyclopedic structure. . ." Now, I think this quote was written for situations where there are two opposing sections (that is not the case with the Role of Women section), but I still think it makes the point that the elements of the section could flow more harmoniously with the article. The quote says "based solely on the apparent Point of View". Here I think the two point of views are the article's main view of the practical aspects of an audio engineer and the ancillary social — perhaps even political — view. The second, social, aspect of an audio engineer seems to be "segregated" for being a different, valid, view of a subject. Therefore, as the quote from the "Neutral Point of View" article states, this section being so separate and "sudden" is rather unencyclopedic. I simply think it should be better integrated into the rest of the article. I hope that was all coherent enough to continue the discussion. Peter J. Yost (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• The first sentence of the Role of Women section states: "According to Women's Audio Mission (WAM), a nonprofit organization based in San Francisco dedicated to the advancement of women in music production and the recording arts, less than 5% of the people working in the field of sound and media are women.[19]" I checked both the WAM website and the included citation and neither mentioned what study they got this number from. I did a little research and found many similar articles, all linking to this study. On page 21, in describing their methods of analysis, the study states "Unlike artists and songwriters, we limited our investigation of producers to the 100 top songs of 2012, 2015, and 2017." This is a very narrow scope of analysis and it is a false generalization to conclude that this small selection of producers represents the entire field. If this citation is used, I think clarification needs to be added to the original statement. Burtre26 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the "Role of X group" sections

I would argue that these sections go against WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION, since they constitute a rather large portion of the article and seem to focus on the experiences of particular social identity groups, distracting from what I would think would be the main purpose of the article: to describe what an audio engineer is/does. I would also mention that a version of this section has also been copied into the Record producers page. Am I the only one that sees this as a distraction from the purpose of the article?
P.S. This seems to be an ongoing, politically motivated theme throughout several articles that I've read. Large sections relating to "Women in said field" seem to be artificially inserted, in an uncomfortable and segregating way, into otherwise focused articles. This politically charged "Role of Women" section is not needed on this page and only serves to exacerbate the very issue of women being kept out of things. Creating a "women section" implies a separation of woman audio engineers as somehow distinct from the community of audio engineers as a whole. There is already a whole section at the bottom for notable audio engineers and all of the women listed in the "Role of Women" section are already listed in the "noteables" section at the bottom.
P.S.S. If you have any doubt as to whether support for this section is politically motivated, I suggest you view the discussion above where one user assumes my gender by accusing me of "mansplaining". The irony of it is mind-boggling. Burtre26 (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: The Record producers page with the section on women record producers has been rewritten and the POV tag removed. Can someone help to rewrite the Role of Women section in this article so this one can be removed? Burtre26 (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hammerax up for deletion again

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Hammerax (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion Second nomination
  

Serial WP:AFD. Question of WP:Notability and WP:Before. Sources need improvement. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Role of X Race

If there was more info sure, but is this part really relevant?It's not notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailingOn (talk • contribs) 02:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)